Percentage of prohibited people who try to buy guns?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Boomerang

Member
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
133
Location
Massachusetts
If a person is prohibited from buying a gun, are they much less likely to try to buy one?

I have a general thought, which may be misguided, that prohibited people are more likely to not have any interest in guns because they don't want to remind themselves that they are not allowed to own them.

I manage a private gun club in Massachusetts. I sell guns. Everyone in our club has a state-issued license to carry firearms. Because of this, when I sell guns, none of the people I sell to is a prohibited person. I have never had to deny a sale.

I'm wondering about the prohibited people who try to buy guns and if there is any way to estimate the percentage of prohibited people who try to buy them.
 
I think the majority of denials are mistakes. Why would someone who knew for sure that he was disqualified even try to buy a gun (from a dealer)?

A disqualified person would try to sidestep the system, either by having a "clean" girlfriend buy it for him, stealing it, or buying it on the street.

Of course, there are always a few cases of retarded criminals who try to buy from a dealer.
 
Prosecutions for Lying on Gun Background Checks Fall to New Low
Mistakes in Gun Background Check System Consequential, Rare:
The report’s authors criticized a U.S. Attorneys’ Office policy not to prosecute people for lying on background check forms while attempting to illegally acquire a firearm. Investigators found that the office did not prosecute such cases unless they were accompanied by other charges.

"We determined that, in general, USAOs most often prosecuted NICS denial cases when aggravated circumstances existed in addition to the prospective purchaser’s false ‘no’ answer to at least one question on the Form 4473," the report said, referring to a common background check form for firearms purchases.

Prosecutors told Congress that "while the Department would prosecute particularly egregious false ‘no' cases arising from NICS denials, it would prioritize prosecuting prohibited persons who actually obtained guns illegally as opposed to those who attempted to purchase a firearm by making false statements during the background process but were unsuccessful," according to the report.
https://freebeacon.com/issues/prosecutions-lying-gun-background-checks-fall-new-low/
 
I had a friend that got denied once. He literally had no idea until they came back and told him that his sale was denied.

According to him he had some kind of domestic charge 20 or 30 years previously in California. The charge was so old did the specifics of the case weren't even on file just that he had been charged.

He claimed to have hired a lawyer and challenge the denial and apparently he had his record cleaned.

The last time I saw him he was working as an armed security guard and he would have had to pass a background check for that
 
The number of denials that are prosecuted are astronomically low. A friend of mine did this for part of his senior thesis at undergrad, I believe it was in the ball park of about 300 people per year are actually pursued by law enforcement. I believe that number is by design. As there are many people who are denied but don't know why. A SS#, name, or address that is similar to a prohibited person are the most likely reasons.
 
According to him he had some kind of domestic charge 20 or 30 years previously in California. The charge was so old did the specifics of the case weren't even on file just that he had been charged.
It takes more than a domestic charge to disqualify a person. There has to be a conviction for the Lautenberg Amendment to kick in. BTW, that's one of the most unfair things that the antigunners ever enacted into law, considering its retroactivity. But it survived judicial review.
 
It takes more than a domestic charge to disqualify a person. There has to be a conviction for the Lautenberg Amendment to kick in. BTW, that's one of the most unfair things that the antigunners ever enacted into law, considering its retroactivity. But it survived judicial review.

I'm not sure what to tell you. I was standing right there when they denied him.

Everything after that is what he told me. I didn't have any way to check up on him and I didn't bother to.

He told me a couple months later that whatever got him denied was reversed and taken off his record and I know a couple years later he was certified as an armed guard.
 
The ones that ought to be prosecuted -are the folks that KNOWINGLY attempt to buy a firearm when they're prohibited.... Right at the top of the list is anyone with a felony conviction.... I can easily agree that there are lots of circumstances where an individual might be unaware that they're in the prohibited side of things. Right behind convicted felons would be anyone that lies on their application since that's clear evidence to me of bad intent...

None of my above opinions is worth much though... can't remember how many times one judge or other tossed a charge that I brought as a young cop (all were felonies...)... The pendulum did swing to the right though towards the end of my career (my era was 1973 to 1995...) as my young guys (and gals) had charges made good in court that I never got to first base with when I was younger....
 
It appears that there was a screen for possible domestic abuse charges. In one instance the original charges came from 1971. Good luck if the court records are gone.That person was able to get it cleared with finger prints, court records, and an application. He was holding a freshly issued state carry permit when the denial came through. At that time is was a thirty day wait until the firearm could be picked up. It was a confused mess.

I suspect that it's just not possible to prosecute the large number of denials in a year. Where would these people be imprisoned in an already crowded system.
 
Last edited:
I think the majority of denials are mistakes. Why would someone who knew for sure that he was disqualified even try to buy a gun (from a dealer)?

A disqualified person would try to sidestep the system, either by having a "clean" girlfriend buy it for him, stealing it, or buying it on the street.

Of course, there are always a few cases of retarded criminals who try to buy from a dealer.
AlexanderA,

Unfortunately, some criminologists have noted that the typical muggers and robbers are generally at the bottom of the pile IQ wise as far as types of criminals go. Quite a few of these hover around 70-80 iq. Low iq is linked to aggression, impulsivity, and lack of objective thinking. My guess is that quite a few of these folks try to buy a firearm from a dealer.
 
Last edited:
If a person is prohibited from buying a gun, are they much less likely to try to buy one?

I have a general thought, which may be misguided, that prohibited people are more likely to not have any interest in guns because they don't want to remind themselves that they are not allowed to own them.

<snip>

I always expected that prohibited persons would get their weapons from "alternative sources" like the black market or the infamous "gun show loophole"
 
The left want more and more laws yet the books are already filled with laws that aren't enforced because there is no room in the prison system.
You want to keep guns out of the hands of felons? Simple! If any felon uses or has possession of a firearm during the commission of another crime, it becomes a federal felony with a minimum of 10 years in federal lockup in addition to whatever sentence their crime gets them. If it happens again (3rd time) he gets +20 years additional. Simple. Effective. Will they do this? Why no, we don't have enough prisons. So what good will new laws do? The good people will follow them and the bad guys will continue to ignore them. They don't care. The punishment is a slap on the wrist to them. They'll continue to have guns no matter what until the punishment becomes a deterrent. Enforce and add teeth to the laws we already have. Enough is enough. We have nothing left to give up.
 
I have witnessed 3 people over the years buying guns answer questions honestly that would get them denied but submitted it anyway. The only reason I know this is I heard the gun salesman tell them that their answers would get the application denied.

One guy that stands out was a gent that I witnessed at Cabela’s in Oregon. He appeared Latino and had an accent but spoke very good English. He had a green card, which I do not believe automatically denies him a gun purchase but he apparently had a conviction on his record and told the salesman that. The salesman told him that the Oregon State Police would deny him the purchase. He wanted it submitted anyway. He wanted a rifle from Cabela’s Gun Library.
Within 30 minutes the results came back for his background check from the State Police. He was denied.
This guy was furious. He was ranting at the salesman and yelling. The police were called and two men (Asst Managers, I believe) escorted him out of the store. I don’t know if the police talked to him or if anything came of it.

When pot was legalized in Oregon I had heard from my friend that worked at my favorite gun store about numerous people proudly exclaiming they use pot when buying guns and were angry when denied purchase. They seemed to feel it was their right to smoke pot snd buy guns. One guy apparently filled out his app, was denied, then came back 3 days later to try again. This time he answered the questions “the right way”. They told him to wait 30 minutes while they submitted the app. But they also called the police. He was escorted out of the store by police but my friend didn’t know if he was brought up in charges.
 
I think the majority of denials are mistakes. Why would someone who knew for sure that he was disqualified even try to buy a gun (from a dealer)?

Of course, there are always a few cases of retarded criminals who try to buy from a dealer.

I like your sunny optimism and faith in your fellow man!

But I fear you could have these numbers backwards. Underestimating the stupidity and ignorance of your fellow citizens is fraught with peril. Unfortunately, I can't find the statistic now, but I recently read an article that offered an astounding number (in the scheme of things, not in absolute terms) of attempted purchases by illegal aliens. When you imagine the impact of the Lautenberg provisos alone, the likelihood of large numbers of folks being unaware that they are prohibited persons increases dramatically. Mine is not such an optimistic view of my fellow Americans and I would suggest that there are large numbers of retarded criminals that attempt to buy from a dealer because 1) they are retarded, 2) they have little to no concept of the NICS process, 3) chemical degradation of memory, and; 4) the belief, born out in part by their being free and at large at the time of attempted purchase, that they can game the system (ie successfully lie).
 
If a person is prohibited from buying a gun, are they much less likely to try to buy one?

I have a general thought, which may be misguided, that prohibited people are more likely to not have any interest in guns because they don't want to remind themselves that they are not allowed to own them.

I manage a private gun club in Massachusetts. I sell guns. Everyone in our club has a state-issued license to carry firearms. Because of this, when I sell guns, none of the people I sell to is a prohibited person. I have never had to deny a sale.

I'm wondering about the prohibited people who try to buy guns and if there is any way to estimate the percentage of prohibited people who try to buy them.

If they are prohibited due to criminal convictions they just buy a gun on the black market. Just real your local newspaper to see this in action.
 
Once they fail the background check, they go and get a relative with a clean background to purchase the gun for them. I remember about 10 years ago, actually listening to a LGS to give instructions to do this. And after he left, they said, "That is a Sale". Now I am not saying all gun shops would do this, and of course that was a decade ago. But the gangs are street wise to do this. They will also do the same for Auto purchases where they do not want to pay in cash for a expensive car.
I wonder how many "Aunts" have purchased firearms and cars?
 
The purpose of the 4473 is to screen out prohibited persons. As long as they answer the questions truthfully, I don't see how they have committed a crime.

It gets more complicated when the applicant doesn't understand subtleties in the law. For example, it's not the consumption of opioids that makes one a prohibited person. It's buying them from a street dealer instead of from a pharmacy with a doctor's prescription. I'm not surprised that marijuana is creating confusion. States are licensing buyers and sellers to violate federal law. I've heard of people failing NICS because they are felons. When challenged, they reply that they were told by the court that it would go away if they completed probation successfully.
 
In states where marijuana is now legal, lots of people knowingly lie on the 4473 question regarding marijuana. They seem to believe they will not get in trouble. So in this situation, prohibited people are not less likely to try to buy a gun.
 
I had a friend that got denied once. He literally had no idea until they came back and told him that his sale was denied.

According to him he had some kind of domestic charge 20 or 30 years previously in California. The charge was so old did the specifics of the case weren't even on file just that he had been charged.

He claimed to have hired a lawyer and challenge the denial and apparently he had his record cleaned.

The last time I saw him he was working as an armed security guard and he would have had to pass a background check for that

I just retired from a large Sheriff's Office in Florida where I worked in the Records Department.

We routinely got FAX's from the FBI wanting info on decades old battery cases for NICS.

Back then, "domestic violence" wasn't a crime category, so they were fishing for battery cases that could today be considered domestic violence.

I'm still trying to figure out that a NICS denial for a 30 year old battery case doesn't constitute ex post facto law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top